Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis
| Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis [boodskap #105405] |
Ma, 29 Augustus 2005 13:14  |
![RHINO[2] is tans af-lyn](/theme/default/images/offline.png "RHINO[2] is tans af-lyn")
RHINO[2]
Boodskappe: 22
Geregistreer: Augustus 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Die informasie hieronder is vir die stupid donners wat net will sien wat
hulle wil. Name: Paul Kruger, Paule Naude, Chris Meyer en Naartjie Bunker
( Dieselfde persoon met verskillende name) en dit herinder my aan Nude
Raider ook. Hierdie ou se trade mark is die manier wat hy bOER skrywe.
Mugabe and Idi Amin must be your type of fuck heads that you love. Child
molesters, rapist and killers. So Naartjie or whatever your name is, why
dont you fuck off to aids ridden Idi Amin and lick his ass.You love them so
much
What did the English do in America, They killed Red Indians till nearly none
left.
What did the English do in Australia, They killed Aboriginals till only a
handfull left and the rest they removed from their mothers
What did the Spanish do in South America, They killed all the Inka
Indians -none left.
What did the Portugese do in Africa, They exported blacks to America and
other countries
What did the Germans do in Europe, They killed millions of
people under cover of two wars
What did the muslims do, They killed many people that is branded as infidels
(dogs)
What did the Catholic Church (Italians) do, They killed many under the
inquition.
WHAT DID THE BOERS DO, THEY BROUGHT THE BIBLE AND SUPPLIED WORK
AND THEN HAD APPARTHEID.
Except for the Boers in South Africa or aboard, if you are any of the
above( including the meide naiers that fled South Africa and now try and
shit on it from a distance) then I tell you to F--K off and go and shit in
your own backyard , eat it and hope to get wise. Including the name
underneath "Paule Naude"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis [boodskap #105451 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #105405] |
Wo, 31 Augustus 2005 18:16  |
a.deemter
Boodskappe: 25
Geregistreer: Oktober 2004
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
APPLAUS!!!
I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch
descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years.
I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!!
But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort of
god?? They only believe what the TV says...
Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people
here didn't believe me....
Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to Africa,
so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something. They expect
us to help them all the time."
I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!" they
said.
I wish you all the luck!!
Cor
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis [boodskap #105452 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #105405] |
Wo, 31 Augustus 2005 18:27 |
a.deemter
Boodskappe: 25
Geregistreer: Oktober 2004
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
Hier is die ou artikel. Ek hoop jy kan Hollands lees:
=======================================
Wat was en is er nu eigenlijk aan de hand in Zuid Afrika?
In dit artikel over Zuid Afrika wordt zo hier en daar naar voorbeelden
gegrepen, om aan te geven, dat hetgene waar Zuid Afrika door de rest van de
wereld voor veroordeeld wordt en werd, op heel veel plaatsen op diezelfde
wereld voorkwam, en nog voorkomt, OOK in de z.g. "beschaafde" naties.
Waar is Nederland mee bezig de laatste tijd? Wat weet men hier van het woord
apartheid?
Men kent het woord, men denkt dat het datgene is, wat de media ons willen
laten geloven, maar IS het dat ook?
Kan men zomaar geloven, wat er op het televisiescherm komt, en op de radio?
Is het niet veel beter, om het uit de eerste hand te horen, om erheen te
gaan met een neutrale blik?
Hoe is deze vorm van apartheid ontstaan? Ik zeg expres "deze vorm", omdat er
meedere vormen zijn. Kijkt U maar naar wat er de Indianen is aangedaan,
bijvoorbeeld. En daarbij, is het niet zo, dat wij eerst de hand in eigen
boezem moeten steken?? Bijvoorbeeld hier in dit zo z.g. "christelijke"
Nederland, waar wij allemaal zo tegen de apartheid zijn, is het nog steeds
zo, dat wanneer er bijvoorbeeld Turken naast Nederlanders komen wonen, het
koophuis van die Nederlanders minder waard wordt..... Hoe was dat
spreekwoord ook weer, dat over de hand en de eigen boezem ?? Laten we elkaar
nu even geen mietje noemen, OK?
Maar goed, laten we teruggaan naar Zuid Afrika.....
Waarom is daar de apartheid ontstaan?
Om het heden te begrijpen,
moet men toch eerst
het verleden kennen.
En, in een land, wat niet eens een Europees, maar een Afrikaans land is, met
meerdere stammen en voor ons Hollanders onbegrijpelijke gebruiken, spelen
meerdere redenen. Dit zijn ook redenen, die voor ons zogenaamd nuchtere
Nederlanders onbegrijpelijk en soms zelfs wreed zijn, maar in Zuid Afrika
zeker bij de zwarte bevolkingsgroep normaal zijn, maar laten we bij een
beginnen.
We schrijven omstreeks 1948....Kenya, Oost Afrika.
In Kenya komt langzaam maar gestadig een beweging op gang, die later bekend
zal worden als de MAU MAU.
Behalve dat erover deze beweging een behoorlijke schat aan informatie te
vinden moet zijn in elke goede bibliotheek, kunnen we hier ook verwijzen
naar het boek van Robert Ruarck, getiteld "Something of Value." Dit boek is
vertaald, ook in het Nederlands, en heet dan "Iets van Waarde".
Ook het boek "Turning Wheels" van Stuart Cloethe, in het Nederlands
"Wentelende wielen" geeft een goede indicatie van de zwarte en de witte man
in het verleden in het zuiden van Afrika. In dit geval tijdens de "Grote
Trek", die de witte Nederlandse mensen begonnen om aan de overheersing door
de Engelsen te ontkomen.
Voor veel mensen is het onbekend, maar tijdens de dagen van Jan van Riebeeck
aan de Zuidpunt van het continent Afrika waren er geen zwarte mensen daar.
De zwarten woonden toendertijd veel meer naar het noordoosten..... Aan de
Kaap waren alleen Bosjesmannen en Hottentotten. Terwijl de Bosjesmannen zich
terugtrokken naar het Noorden, mengden de Hollanders zich met de
Hottentotten. Zo ontstond een ras mensen, wat men nu kent als "Kleurling".
In 1992, dus tijdens de z.g. Apartheid-dagen, was Miss Suid Afrika een
Kleurlinge......
Om de reden van de apartheid, zoals deze gedurende de laatste 30 jaren in
het leven geroepen is, te begrijpen, zijn de boeken die net zijn genoemd,
een regelrechte aanrader. Iedereen, die de andere kant van de zwarte man,
maar ook van de witte man in Afrika wil zien, MOET deze boeken lezen, want
zonder deze kennis is het gewoon niet mogelijk om goed te oordelen, zo er al
iets te oordelen valt. En, wie is de Europeaan, en zeker de Amerikaan om te
oordelen??
Want, de andere kant van de zwarte is niet de rol van diegene die altijd
maar uitgezogen is, zeker niet. Goed, de zwarte mensen werkten op de farms
van de blanken. Maar, in een land met een klimaat wat veel warmer is dan
Europa, werkt men anders. Met begon 's ochtends heel vroeg, om 5 uur. Om
ongeveer 8 uur was het tijd voor het ontbijt. Dan werd er doorgewerkt tot
ongeveer 1 uur in de middag. De middagpauze was erg lang, want het was
gewoon te warm om te werken. Om ongeveer 4 uur begon men weer, tot ongeveer
7 uur, waarna het tijd was voor het avondeten. De zon gaat in Zuid Afrika
veel eerder onder dan hier, en om 8 uur was het echt donker. Wat kreeg zo'n
zwarte man nu betaald? Hij kreeg een loon, in geld, maar dat was niet veel.
Wel kreeg hij van de farm zijn eten. Dit bestond uit meel, melk, eieren,
maismeel, vlees, (een half schaap per week per gezin, of meer als zijn gezin
groter was) en hij en zijn gezin hadden gratis "Medical", oftewel
Ziekenfonds. Vrijwel elke farmer had een school op zijn land. De kleding
(inclusief school-uniformen) voor de zwarte mensen kwam ook van de farm. Dit
werd gedaan door de farmers-vrouw. Dus eigenlijk was hun loon in geld niet
meer dan zakgeld. Veel farmers hadden een kleine "winkel van sinkel" op hun
land. Dit was erg practisch, gezien de enorme afstanden naar de
eerstvolgende stad of dorp. En, de zwarten kregn nog eens korting in die
winkel ook.
Maar dankbaar? O,ja, de meesten waren "Die Baas" dankbaar, maar zoals het zo
vaak gaat, waren er hier ook individuen, die het "beter wisten".... Bereid
U maar vast voor op bloed.....
Een bekend spreekwoord gaat hier op:
"Hij bijt de hand die hem voedt."
Om een voorbeeld uit die tijd te geven:
In de late jaren 40, zitten een blanke dokter met zijn hoogzwangere blanke
vrouw in hun huis in Kenya. Het was een lange dag, en er waren die dag veel
patienten geweest. Het was hun eigen keus, om naar Afrika te gaan; ze hadden
hun leven gewijd aan het welzijn van de lokale bevolking. Iedere dag maar
weer, dag in, dag uit, waren zij bezig met de patienten. Veel had het hun
gekost, om het vertrouwen te winnen van de zwarten: de meesten van hen
gingen immers liever naar de medicijn-man. Toch was het hen gelukt, om
levens te sparen, dankzij de moderne geneesmiddelen.
Een klop op de de deur.... de bediende komt binnen.
(een bediende was heel gewoon, en de bediende zag het als een hoge eer, om
bij de witman te mogen werken, want daardoor steeg zijn aanzien t.o.v. de
anderen, en wat deden de Hollanders in Indie met bediendes??)
Maar goed, even terug naar het verhaal....
"Ja, Moses?"
"Bwana, achter het huis zijn een paar mensen, die U willen spreken!"
"O.K., Moses, zeg ze maar, dat ik er aankom."
De bediende gaat weer.
De dokter staat op, en loopt naar achteren.
Hij zou nooit meer terugkomen.... Een panga scheidt zijn hoofd van zijn
romp. (Een panga is de Afrikaanse klewang of machete, m.a.w. een zwaar
kapmes)
De doktersvrouw, benieuwd naar het lange uitblijven van haar man, gaat ook
naar achteren, waar zij onthaald wordt op een regelrechte zeer brute
verkrachting door meerdere mannen. Daarna wordt haar buik opengesneden, en
de baby wordt voor haar ogen gedood. Onder deze folteringen sterft ook de
moeder.
Gruwelijk?
Voor de zwarten die het deden was het gewoon....
De mensen in Europa, toen in 1948, en hier in de jaren '90, schijnen maar
niet te KUNNEN begrijpen, dat we hier te maken hebben met zwarten, die
duizenden jaren lang hun eigen leven hebben gehad, zonder inmenging van
buitenaf. Dit kan men niet binnen een tijdsbestek van 40 of 50 jaar
goedmaken, als er al iets goed te maken valt. Die manier van leven, was HUN
leven, en het is zeer zeker niet aan ons, witten, om daarover te oordelen.
Zeker, zij waren in onze ogen wreed, maar hoe waren wij, 400 jaar en meer
geleden, bijvoorbeeld met de folterkamers? Om maar te zwijgen over de Rooms
Katholieke Inquisitie....
Zelfs in de tegenwoordige tijd komt het nog voor, dat er op scholen gekeken
wordt naar het geloof wat je hebt. Ben je katholiek, dan speel je op dat
schoolplein, ben je protestant, dan speel je op het andere...
De witte kolonisten zaten intussen wel met het probleem.....
Stammenoorlogen waren heel gewoon, en in de ogen van de zwarten WAS het ook
gewoon. Toen in de vorige eeuw aan de machtige ZULU-koning Shaka werd
gevraagd, hoe hij zijn mannen noemde, was het antwoord:
"Dit zijn mijn Impi's!"
(Een impi was een soldaat, en niet meer of minder dan dat)
Ook het woord Kaffer is nogal beladen... Oorspronkelijk komt dit woord uit
het Arabisch, "CAFIR", en het betekent "ongelovige", of "heiden". De zwarten
namen het over. Eerst in deze eeuw is het tot een scheldwoord geworden.
Er werd in het Zuid Afrika van 1948 een wet uitgevaardigd, dat alle zwarte
mensen een speciale pas moesten hebben, om van de ene kant van het land naar
het andere te reizen. Nu werd eigenlijk gewoon officieel gemaakt, wat door
de lokale chiefs altijd al was gedaan, en vandaag de dag nog steeds
voorkomt:
Eerst toestemming, dan reizen.
En reken maar niet, dan een Zulu ooit toestemming kon krijgen, om door
Xhosa-land te reizen, of andersom. Dat betekende zelfmoord. De andere stam
zou hem afmaken...
Hetzelfde geldt voor alle andere stammen, Venda, Tswana, Matabele, enz.
Het schijnt aan de mensen in Nederland en daarbuiten ook nog steeds niet
duidelijk te zijn, dat er zoiets als 50 stammen leven in Zuidelijk Afrika,
en de meeste kunnen elkaars bloed wel kunnen drinken. Om dat te voorkomen,
is deze vorm van "apartheid" ingesteld, niet meer, niet minder. Het
betekende in het begin niet meer dan dat de stammen zich onderling niet
mochten mengen.
Het betekende OOK voor de witten apartheid: ook de witten mochten niet komen
op plaatsen die speciaal voor zwarten waren ingesteld, want dat was HUN
grond. Maar dat weet men hier niet....Ja zeker, er werden speciale gedeelten
van Zuid Afrika voor de zwarte mensen ingesteld, de z.g. "Thuislanden." En
dat waren zeker niet de minst vruchtbare delen!
Men denkt hier, dat de blanken alles mochten, en de zwarten niets. Niets is
minder waar.... De blanken mochten zeer zeker in de avond niet in de
"zwarte" woonoorden komen, maar wie liepen er 's avonds en 's nachts door de
"witte" woonoorden ??
Zwarten.
Neem bijvoorbeeld Durban, een luxe badplaats, had een groot eigen stuk
strand "SLEGS VIR NIE BLANKES" en geen enkele witte mocht daar komen.
Veel mensen hier denken, dat de witten alle macht hadden, en maar konden
doen en laten wat zij wilden, maar dat was zeker niet zo. En dat is nog
steeds niet zo. Wanneer een blanke zich bevond in een thuisland, geldt ook
voor die blanke de wet van dat thuisland. Ook een witte ging naar de
gevangenis omdat hij in het thuisland bijvoorbeeld een snelheidsovertreding
niet kon betalen.....
Een ander voorbeeld:
Een zwarte gaat in Zuid-Afrika naar de hypotheek-bank, om een huis te kunnen
kopen. Hij kan zijn hypotheek krijgen, met 9,5 percent rente, looptijd 99
jaar. (overdraagbaar aan kinderen)
Een witman doet hetzelfde, en kan zijn hypotheek krijgen, met 23,5 percent
rente, looptijd 25 jaar, niet overdraagbaar.
Dit is een van de voordelen, om in Zuid Afrika zwart te zijn. Er zijn er
meer te noemen....
50 Randcent voor een doktersconsult, en 2 Rand voor de medicijnen, tegen
voor de witte 28 rand voor enkel het doktersconsult....om van de medicijnen
maar te zwijgen.
De mensen in Europa, en speciaal Nederland, die met de Boeren in Zuid Afrika
een sterke band zouden moeten voelen, zien waarschijnlijk voor hun
geestesoog landen als Biafra, waar ooit grote hongersnood heerste.... of die
beelden van die lieve kleine negertjes op moeders arm.
MAAR:
In Zuid Afrika is ten tijde van de z.g. "blanke overheersing" nog NOOIT
hongersnood geweest....
De schrijver dezes daagt alle mensen uit, om zich eens heel goed te
informeren over een land als Rhodesia, nu dan Zimbabwe. Hoe was Rhodesia ten
tijde van de witte Premier Ian Smith? Hoeveel werkloosheid was er toen? Hoe
is datzelfde land nu, onder de zwarte Robert Mugabe? Ik daag U uit, om U
heel goed van deze verschillen op de hoogte te stellen.
Het is toch met meerdere farms gebeurt in bijvoorbeeld Kenya, ten tijde van
Yomo Kenyatta, dat de regering tegen de farmer zei, dat 50 percent van de
winst direct naar de regering moest, en de andere 50 percent verdeelt moest
worden onder de zwarte werkers op de farm. Wanneer de farmer dan
protesteerde, zeggende dat hij alles wat hij had, aan het land had gegeven,
en er niet aan dacht om zijn bezit zomaar weg te geven, dan werden zijn
dieren verminkt. Met panga's (grote kapmessen) werden de poten direct onder
de knieen afgeslagen....Hij kon ze dan alleen nog afschieten....
Moet dit ook met Zuid Afrika gebeuren?
En de Nederlandse regering laat dan zomaar toe, dat er zoveel geld aan 1
partij in Zuid Afrika wordt gegeven, onder de noemer "democratie".
Democratie betekent wel even wat anders! Het komt van het Griekse "DEMOS"
oftewel "volk". Met andere woorden: ALLE mensen.
En, van een zeer betrouwbare bron is intussentijd vernomen, dat er nogmaals
geld naar de partij van Nelson Mandela is verstuurd:
R 50.000.000,- oftewel VIJF- en TWINTIG MILJOEN GULDEN!!! Dat staat dan niet
in de kranten hier.
Met dat geld hadden de Nederlandse oude mensen, die voor DIT land gewerkt en
gevochten hebben, nu een wat betere oude dag kunnen hebben, om maar eens een
voorbeeld te noemen. Geen wonder dat deze mensen nu hun eigen partij
oprichten! Zij voelen zich verraden door hun eigen regering, die hen
afknijpt, terwijl er zoveel geld naar andere landen gaat, bijvoorbeeld Zuid
Afrika, waar mensen als Nelson Mandela het geld heel goed kan gebruiken om
via Mozambique wapens te kopen, om daarmee afstammelingen van o.a.
Nederlandse immgranten te laten vermoorden.
En, wat staat er tegenwoordig in de kranten?? Zoveel miljoenen aan steun
voor o.a. Afrika is weggegooid geld geweest....Ja, waarom zou een zwarte in
Afrika werken?? De witman geeft toch genoeg ??
Men moet NU stoppen met het sturen van geld. Het moet daar duidelijk worden,
dat men moet werken om iets te bereiken, en niet zielig moet zitten doen.
Hulp, om de zwarte mensen te leren, hoe ze zichzelf kunnen leren is prima,
maar vooraleerst is scholing nodig, heel veel scholing.
U zult zien, als U meerdere landen van Afrika onder de loupe neemt, dat er
in de gehele zuidelijke helft van het continent Afrika eigenlijk maar 2
landen zijn, waar het rustig is, en die het best wel goed doen op dit
moment: Malawi en Swaziland.
In Malawi heeft meer dan 95 percent van de bevolking werk, en er is geen
hongersnood, de vooruitzichten zijn goed. Het kostte President Banda van
Malawi wel het inzetten van een behoorlijk totalitair systeem, maar het
werkt wel! Tegenwoordig moet je zeggen "werkte", want ook President Banda is
afgezet. Waarschijn-lijk zal ook dit land het "voorbeeld" van de andere nu
volkomen zwarte landen volgen......
Swaziland is een rustig koninkrijk waar ook de meeste mensen werk hebben,
wat het moet hebben van landbouw en toerisme.
Er is een tijd geweest dat men van Kaapstad naar Cairo kon rijden zonder ook
maar eenmaal het paspoort te moeten laten zien....Alles was Engels
protectoraat. En, er was werk. Kijk eens naar de film "Out of Africa"...en
nu goed.
Kijk nu eens naar die landen, daar aan de Oostkust van Afrika......
Men wilde toch zonodig onafhankelijkheid?? Somalia, etc.
En nu dan Rwanda.....ook daar is de witman weg.....
Terug naar begin jaren 50....
Onder leiding van een tegenwoordig nogal bekend persoon, waarop ik later
terug zal komen, wordt intussen in Zuid Afrika, net zoals in Kenya, de roep
"MAU MAU" steeds luider....
Intussentijd probeert Rusland zijn invloed op het zwarte continent te
verstevigen, door vooral uit Oost Afrika jonge jongens mee te nemen, hen in
Rusland op te voeden, en een commando-opleiding te geven. Na hun opleiding
komen deze jongens, die volkomen gedrild en gehersenspoeld zijn, maar nog
steeds de eigen taal spreken, en de gebruiken kennen, terug in Oost Afrika.
(zie ook: Iets van Waarde, passage: Kimani vroeg over "Hij die in Rusland
woont...")
En, als U wilt weten wat voor de blanken de dagelijkse routine was, kijk
eens naar het begin van hoofdstuk 6. Dit boek is geen fictie, het is
gebaseerd op FEITEN!!
Zie ook, als U het Engels machtig bent: "Black Chameleon" van Martin Booth.
Vergeet U intussentijd niet, dat de meeste pioniers in Oost- en Zuid Afrika
van West- Europese oorsprong waren? De Koude Oorlog tussen Oost en West was
intussen uitgebroken, weet U nog?
De "Mau Mau" ontketende in Oost Afrika ware slachtingen onder de emigranten,
EN onder zwarten die trouw waren aan hun bazen.
Na een lange periode van ongeloof, MOEST de Britse regering wel geloven, dat
er wat aan de hand was in haar kolonie, en stuurde troepen. Veel blanken, de
zwarte terreur meer dan beu, vluchtten naar Zuid Afrika....
OP DIT MOMENT BEGINT HETZELFDE IN ZUID AFRIKA !!!
Ik ben net terug van een reis van twee maanden in het
land, en gedurende die tijd zijn 8 farms uitgemoord.
... En ik heb een contact in het Zuiden van Zuid Afrika, en
volgens deze man, ook een farmer, gaat het moorden maar
door.....
Zuid Afrika, met haar rijkdom aan diamanten, koper, uranium, en tal van
andere dure delfstoffen, was echter ook heel interessant voor de Russen.....
Maar, Zuid Afrika was een te grote kluif voor de Russen. Het werd nog wel
geprobeerd door langs de kusten van het land te patrouilleren (Er is al eens
een Russische onderzeeer gesignaleerd in de haven van Port Elizebeth) maar
de Russische invloed in het land wat de wereld toen kende als de "Unie van
Zuid Afrika" was toch aanzienlijk minder dan in Kenya.
Toch was de invloed merkbaar....Toendertijd nog verboden partijen zoals ANCP
werden steeds actiever.
De regering bood intussen kansen aan de zwarten:
De zwarte hoefde ook niet te reizen op eigen kosten, er werd voor transport
gezorgd. Vergeet U niet, dat mensen, die nog nooit, of maar zelden voor een
baas hadden gewerkt, geen geld konden hebben, om de lange reis (en terug) te
betalen. De mijnen zorgden voor transport van de aankomende mijnwerkers, zij
kregen behalve hun opleiding hun onderdak in z.g. hostels, hun eten en
drinken, hun kleding, hun "medical" (ziekenzorg). Tegenwoordig zijn er
mensen, die zeggen, dat de hostels zeer armoedig waren..... maar vergelijkt
U een hostel eens met het hutje waar veel van de zwarte mijnwerkers
uitkwamen.
Tussen haakjes, de mijn-hostels werden als eerte gesticht, niet door
Hollanders, maar door de Engelsman Cecil John Rhodes, naar wie Rhodesia
later werd genoemd;
Met andere woorden: dus niet door de Afrikaners van Hollandse oorsprong.....
De Engelse invloed was intussen zeer groot in de Unie van Zuid Afrika. De
toestand in de hostels kan dan ook voor een groot deel aan de Engelsen
worden toegeschreven, niet alleen aan de z.g. Afrikaners.
Terwijl de vrouwen thuis onder de bescherming van de stam en het dorp
leefden, en elke maand hun geld toegestuurd kregen, waarmee zij beter voor
de kinderen konden zorgen, etc, werkten de mannen in de mijnen, in
ploegendiensten. Zij hadden een contract voor achttien maanden, en dan waren
ze zes maanden vrij. Voor transport terug werd gezorgd. Allerlei soorten
zwarten werkten in de mijnen....Zulu's, Xhosa's, Matabele's, enzovoort.
Helaas, hier was ook de oude, onderlinge haat.... Mijnwerkers van
verschillende stammen werkten niet samen, dit kon ook hier niet, men zou
elkaar ombrengen. De directie van de mijnen zag er streng op toe, dat elke
ploeg uit alleen mensen van 1 stam bestond. Met andere wooren, er waren dus
hostels voor elke stam.
Maar:
Zelfs binnen de stam was nog vaak ruzie: de Xhosa-stam bijvoorbeeld, is
verdeeld over de thuislanden Ciskei en Transkei. Met andere woorden, om 1
ploeg mijnwerkers samen te stellen, was heel wat voor nodig. Maar het lukte!
Overredingskracht deed al een hele hoop...
Tot die ene, rampzalige dag, in een plaats genaamd Sharpville.....
In Sharpville liep het helemaal uit de hand. In een mijnhostel werd hard
gevochten tussen de zwarten onderling, zelfs zo hard, dat de
beveiligingsmensen (waaronder ook zwarten!) van de mijn het niet meer
aankonden. Hoe langer het duurde, hoe meer mensen zich ermee gingen
bemoeien... Uiteindelijk werd het leger ingezet. Toen was het vrij snel voor
elkaar....en kon men de doden van de vechtpartij gaan tellen. Het was een
slachting geweest....
En een logische slachting. Zou U geen scherpe patronen gebruiken, als U bij
de politie was, en U had de keus uit wapenstok of pistool, en er staat
iemand, zwart, blauw, groen, wit, of wat dan ook tegenover U, met een panga,
klaar om Uw hoofd in tweeen te splijten?? Ik wel!
Nog steeds waren de Russen bezig in de achtergrond...
In feite gebruikten de Russen de onderlinge stammentwisten in Zuid Afrika.
Ze moedigden ze aan, en probeerden er toch een slaatje uit te slaan. De
Russen maakten de Zuid-Afrikaanse zwarten wijs, dat zij ook zo konden leven
als de witten deden, ze moesten daarvoor alleen maar precies doen wat de
Russen wilden. Veel zwarten werden onder invloed van de Russische beloften
communist, en voerden orders uit, orders die het land werden ingesmokkeld.
Aanslagen op winkelcentra, aanslagen op afgelegen farms, etc.
Een zwarte jongeman, een plaatselijke leider, die zich bijzonder had
onderscheiden op dit bloedige gebied, werd begin jaren '60 ingerekend en
opgesloten. Hij had o.a. georganiseerd, dat er enige zware bommen o.a. in
het station van Johannesburg werd geplaatst. Deze bom ging af tijdens het
spitsuur. Honderden mensen werden toen gedood....velen meer zwaar gewond...
En dat was niet de enigste maal....De ANC, en dus ook hun leider, had de
hand in meerdere bom-aanslagen. En, voor diegenen die het nog niet weten, de
A.N.C. had vroeger een andere naam, namelijk "A.N.C.P.".
African National Communist Party.....
Afrikaanse Nasionale Communistiese Party.
De regering antwoordde met een hard, totalitair apartheids-systeem......maar
ook om de mensen in feite tegen zichzelf te beschermen.
De al eerder genoemde jongeman had met Zuid Afrika niet zo heel veel van
doen.... Hij kwam zelf uit het door de Zuid Afrkaanse regering onafhankelijk
gemaakte Transkei, een land, wat door de regering in Pretoria volkomen op
poten was gezet. Scholen, ziekenhuizen, leger, noem maar op, was betaald
door de blanke Zuid Afrikaanse belastingbetaler, o.a. door middel van een ac
cijns van R 0,08 per liter op benzine.
De Rand is nu niet veel meer waard...maar toendertijd had met voor twee Rand
1 Engelse Pond, die in Holland FL 10,- waard was....
Reken maar uit...
Alleen al dit feit, de devaluatie van de Rand vertelt in feite al, dat Zuid
Afrika zo'n dertig jaar geleden een machtig land was, en nu niet meer....
De z.g. "pasjeswet" was intussen al enige jaren van kracht geworden. Geen
zwarte mocht zonder toestemming van chief en regering reizen. De Russische
invloed in Zuid Afrika werd eigenlijk zoveel mogelijk in de kiem gesmoord.
De regering vond ook, dat het maar eens uit moest zijn met de eeuwige
onderlinge vechten, maar kreeg dat alleen maar voor elkaar, door de
pasjeswet, het eigenlijk begin van de apartheid waartegen geprotesteerd werd
door de rest van de wereld. De zwarten, die wilden, konden werk krijgen.
Werk genoeg! En als men ook zo wilde wonen als de witman, moest men er voor
werken. Samen werken, wel te verstaan. Men moest de ondelinge vetes
opzijzetten, en SAMENWERKEN. Want, alleen samen ben je sterk.
Als U nou de kans zou hebben om naar Soweto te gaan, kijkt U daar eens goed
rond. Het is echt niet alleen maar armoede....Er staan ook zeer veel huizen,
waar menigeen in Holland zich de vingers bij af zou likken....
Samen ben je sterk.....
Dat houdt dus in, dat wanneer zwart persoon voor een baas werkt, deze
persoon ook 5 dagen moet werken, en niet 3 dagen, en dan eerst zijn geld
gaat opmaken. Daarna, als het geld op is, zou iemand in Europa ontslagen
worden, maar niet in Zuid Afrika....
Een baas moet een zwarte weer aannemen... Dit werkt dus niet, niet hier, en
ook niet daar.
Alleen samen ben je sterk......
Dit is nu wat de F.J. De Klerk altijd wilde...
In feite is wat ex-president De Klerk wil hetzelfde als wat premier Jan
Smuts, belangrijke mede-oprichter van de Verenigde Naties aan het eind van
de jaren 40 wilde.
Mede onder invloed van Engeland werd Zuid Afrika in het begin van de jaren
'60 getransformeerd van de Unie van Zuid Afrika naar de Republiek Zuid
Afrika, en er kwam helaas een regering, die meer neo-nazi georienteerd was.
Kijkt U in de bibliotheek maar onder "Broederbond".
Negatieve apartheid kreeg helaas meer en meer kans... President Vorster en
Pres. Verwoerd werden berucht....
Echter, President Bota deed de kansen keren, en de ex-presient De Klerk ging
verder met die koers.
Bedenkt U wel, dat het onder de druk van de wereld-opinie is, en alleen dat,
dat er nu een zwarte president is, en een nieuwe vlag. Is het U opgevallen
hoeveel deze vlag lijkt op die van de PLO? Weet U ook, dat Yasser Arafat,
en de huidige president van Zuid Afrika op heel goede voet staan met elkaar
?? En, wat vindt U nu van het bezoek van President Mandela aan Lybi�?
Als de zwarten dezelfde kansen willen, als de witten, dan kan dat. Maar, het
komt niemand zomaar aanwaaien, er zal net zoals de witten hebben moeten
doen, voor gewerkt moeten worden.
We kunnen natuurlijk niet werken zoals die zwarte jongeman, die
plaatselijke leider, die jarenlang in de gevangenis heeft gezeten voor zijn
aandeel in de MAU MAU en de inbreng van het communisme, en het meeste van al
die bomaanslagen in Zuid Afrika. Nee, niet zoals Nelson Mandela, de huidige
president, want die is het.
Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, waarom hij in de gevangenis heeft gezeten?
Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, wat de Zuid Afrikaanse regering gedurende al
die jaren heeft gedaan voor het welzijn van de zwarten? Hoe de thuislanden
op poten zijn gezet door de regering? Leger, scholen, universiteiten,
huizen, werk, en ga zo maar door. Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, hoe het
komt dat er een Soweto-dag is?
Hierom:
Omdat er door bepaalde groeperingen zwarten in het (toen) officieel
twee-talige land geen Afrikaans geleerd wilde worden, brandde men dan maar
de basisscholen plat....
Tegenwoordig wordt er geklaagd, dat er geen scholen zijn. Ja, hallo!!
We blijven niet aan de gang!!
Waarom geloven de Xhosa's hun leider op zijn woord?
Hij belooft hen koeien met gouden hoorns, maar ik betwijfel zeer sterk, dat
hij het klaarspeelt om zijn beloftes te houden. Iedereen, die op hem stemt,
zal een huis, een auto, werk, etc. krijgen.....
Maar WERKEN, daar wordt niet over gesproken door Mandela. Hij wil dat alles
aan zijn mensen "geven". Hij betreurt het intussentijd wel, dat
"witte kennis" het land verlaat in een massa-exodus. (De z.g. "Chicken-run")
Ja, dat haal je de koekoek!!
Hoe het ook zij, er zijn in het verleden door beide partijen fouten gemaakt,
ook zeer zeker fouten die niet meer goedgemaakt kunnen worden, van beide
kanten.
Gelijkheid?
Prima.
Gelijke betaling voor hetelfde werk?
Prima.
Maar dan ook voor hetzelfde werk, en niet voor minder, want net zoals iedere
witman moet leren, dat de zwarten een andere levensstijl hebben, die niet
per defintie minder waard is, en dat de zwarten geen minderwaardige mensen
zijn, zo zal de zwarte moeten leren, dat datgene, waar hij nu voor vecht,
voor het grijpen ligt, mits hij ervoor werkt....
Het is natuurlijk belachelijk, dat een zwarte, die zijn lagere school niet
heeft afgemaakt, nu een goedbetaalde baan krijgt, omdat het zijn
"democratisch recht" is. En dat gebeurt!! Er is nu een wet met de naam
"Affirmative Action"... Zwarten hebben absolute voorrang in alles, omdat zij
zwart zijn, niet omdat ze gestudeerd hebben.
En niet alleen in banen, maar ook in sport. Absoluut belachelijk!!
Het kan ook anders, het kan ook beter....
Er zijn ook zwarten die wel hun kansen hebben benut:
Neem nu als voorbeeld eens die rijke zwarte, die Managing Director van een
van de maatschappijen in Zuid Afrika. Deze man heeft een inkomen waar veel
blanken alleen maar van kunnen dromen....Hij zegt: "Ondanks mijn rijkdom,
zal ik NOOIT mijn oude stam-gebruiken de rug toekeren!"
Maar, niemand vraagt dat ook aan hem.
Blanke nationalisten zeggen dan: "Je kan een kaffir wel uit het bos halen,
maar het bos nooit uit de kaffir."
Ik vraag dan op mijn beurt: " Is het slecht om je eigen identiteit te
behouden??
De gemiddelde Zuid Afrikaanse blanke zegt nu tegen de zwarten:
"Ga je gang, als je de capaciteit er voor hebt kan jij ook die baan hebben.
Je krijgt die baan niet, omdat je zwart bent.
Blijf je echter je hand ophouden, zodat de wereld kan zien hoe "zielig" je
wel bent, dan blijkt, dat ik, met mijn fouten die ik met de apartheid heb
gemaakt, toch al die tijd gewoon gelijk heb gehad."
Want het is nu ook aan jou, zwartman!"
Maak WAAR die grote woorden, en laat
Zuid Afrika niet eindigen zoals de rest
van de landen van Afrika!
Want "De Stem van Suid Afrika" zal in wat voor taal dan ook, voor ALLE
mensen, zwart, wit en bruin moeten klinken:
Uit die blou van onse hemel,
Uit die diepte van ons see,
Oor ons ewige gebergtes
Waar die kranse antwoord gee,
Deur ons ver-verlate vlaktes,
Met die kreun van ossewa-
Ruis die stem van ons geliefde
Van ons land Suid Afrika.
Ons sal antwoord op jou roepstem,
Ons sal offer wat jy vra:
Ons sal lewe, ons sal sterwe,
Ons vir jou, Suid Afrika.
En dan nu Zimbabwe... Het houdt nooit op....
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis [boodskap #105454 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #105451] |
Wo, 31 Augustus 2005 19:17 |
D@D
Boodskappe: 143
Geregistreer: Mei 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:16:23 +0200, "a.deemter" wrote:
> APPLAUS!!!
>
> I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch
> descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years.
> I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!!
>
> But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort of
> god?? They only believe what the TV says...
>
> Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people
> here didn't believe me....
> Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to Africa,
> so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something. They expect
> us to help them all the time."
> I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!" they
> said.
>
> I wish you all the luck!!
>
> Cor
>
>
Hallo Cor, jy kan gerus in Nederlands skryf.
Dit is tog een van die dialekte van Afrikaans, so almal hier sal jou
verstaan. Is jy dalk die Cor in Nederland met wie ek somtyds oor
Photoshop gesels? Hotmail adres? Cenakroon?
'
'
Hier is vir jou iets om te lees en tot jou eie gevolgtrekking te kom.
Dit kan jy gerus ook vir jou vriende gee.
**********************************
ek het 'n vorige keer baie moeite gedoen
om so brief te panelbeat, en daar was geen
waardering daarvoor nie. Julle kan dus nou
self die sinne beter in lyne kry.
**********************************
[Here in his most famous speech, Mandela laid out the politics and
policies
of the African National Congress on a wide range of issues. Today
Mandela is
feted with praise all over the world. But when it was given, few
supported
him outside of black South Africans, members of African liberation
movements
on the continent, and leaders like Malcolm X in the United States.
Members
of the South African and other Communist Parties, and Cuba were firm
supporters of Mandela and the ANC's struggle from the earliest days.
Mandela
visited Cuba shortly after he was released from prison after 17 years,
to
express his appreciation for Cuba's solidarity. Some may have
forgotten what
Mandela fought for, but this is a good time to remind ourselves.
Mandela was
accused of being a terrorist and a Communist then. Washington was in
apartheid's corner then. Full social justice remains to be
accomplished in
South Africa, but much has been accomplished. Some seem to have
forgotten
that today.-WL]
African National Congress (South Africa)
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html
"I am Prepared to Die"
Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the opening of the
defence case in the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria Supreme Court
20 April 1964
I am the First Accused.
I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in
Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I
am a
convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without
a
permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961.
At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in
its
opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of
foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I
did,
both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my
experience
in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not
because
of what any outsider might have said.
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe
telling
stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were
those of
wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names
of
Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile,
Moshoeshoe
and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African
nation. I
hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people
and
make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is
what has
motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made
against
me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the
question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are
true
and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage.
I did
not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love
of
violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of
the
political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny,
exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form
Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs
until I
was arrested in August 1962.
In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain
false
impressions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other
things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the
evidence were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto. I
will also
deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and
Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the
affairs of
both organizations. I shall deal also with the part played by the
Communist
Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to
explain
what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the
achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I
will also
have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these
organizations.
I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which
clearly fell
outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in
the
indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for
these
acts, but to demonstrate that they could not have been authorized by
Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the
organization.
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to
form
Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for
two
reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy,
violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless
responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings
of our
people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an
intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of
this
country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that
without
violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed
in
their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful
modes of
expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by
legislation, and
we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a
permanent
state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the
law.
We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to
violence; when
this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to
a show
of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide
to
answer violence with violence.
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who
formed
Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had
behind
us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of
solving
political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the
people
who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not
want
an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the
Court
is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our
organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently
say,
when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want,
therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.
The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights
of the
African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa
Act,
and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For
thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a
constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it
sent
delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances
could be
settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance
gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained
unmoved,
and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In
the
words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in
1952,
and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
"who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking
in
vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door?
What
have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen
the
greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until
today we
have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all".
Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At
this
time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional
means of
protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied
in a
decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by
peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant
to
this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was
placed in
charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of
passive
resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to
jail.
Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this
campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were
convicted
for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our
sentences
were suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and
non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the
volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word
'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time when the volunteers
were
asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing
with
volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but
completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the
soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the
whites.
They were, and are. dedicated workers who are prepared to lead
campaigns
initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organize strikes, or
do
whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers
because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and
whipping
which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.
During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal
Law
Amendment Act were passed. These Statutes provided harsher penalties
for
offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the
protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence.
In
1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself,
were
arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression
of
Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by
the
State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it
found
that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on
all
counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a
communist
state in place of the existing regime. The Government has always
sought to
label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been
repeated in
the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has
been, a
communist organization.
In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the
proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as
an
unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful
consideration,
decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were
not part
of the Government and did not make the laws by which they were
governed. We
believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
that
'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the
Government',
and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the
silencing
of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead
went
underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organization
which
had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have
no
doubt that no self-respecting White political organization would
disband
itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say.
In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the
establishment of
the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of
the
population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not
even
consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were
apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a
resolution was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for
a
National Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of
the
unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention.
The
conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions.
I was
the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for
organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to
coincide with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by
Africans
are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I
was
chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and
family
and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.
The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful
demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and
members to
avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's answer was to
introduce new
and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens,
armed
vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force
designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the
Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a
milestone on the road to Umkhonto.
Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe
none of
it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to
appreciate the
attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies
concerned in
the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the
dominant
idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was
still
so in 1963.
I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people,
to do?
Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against
future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how?
We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would
have
been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was
how to
continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial
democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races
further
apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years
of
non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more
repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy
for
this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the
people
had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the
White
man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had
nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to
pursue
peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of
1961, it
could not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial State by
non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were
beginning to
lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of
terrorism.
It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact,
become a
feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence
in
1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was
violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in
Sekhukhuniland;
there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested
against
pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted
to
impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in
these
disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this
time
the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance
pointed
clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that
violence
was the only way out - it showed that a Government which uses force to
maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it.
Already
small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously
making
plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a
danger that
these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as
Whites, if
not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of
violence
engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland
amongst
Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against
the
Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife
amongst
themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve
anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.
At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of
the
South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the
conclusion that
as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic
and
wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence
at a
time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force.
This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else
had
failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us,
that
the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political
struggle, and
to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a
course,
but solely because the Government had left us with no other choice. In
the
Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit
AD, we
said:
"The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two
choices
- submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall
not
submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power
in
defence of our people, our future, and our freedom".
This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a
change
in the policy of the National Liberation Movement. I can only say that
I
felt morally obliged to do what I did.
We who had taken this decision started to consult leaders of various
organizations, including the ANC. I will not say whom we spoke to, or
what
they said, but I wish to deal with the role of the African National
Congress
in this phase of the struggle, and with the policy and objectives of
Umkhonto we Sizwe.
As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view which can be
summarized as follows:
1. It was a mass political organization with a political function to
fulfil.
Its members had joined on the express policy of non-violence. 2.
Because of
all this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This must be
stressed. One cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit
organization required for sabotage. Nor would this be politically
correct,
because it would result in members ceasing to carry out this essential
activity: political propaganda and organization. Nor was it
permissible to
change the whole nature of the organization. 3. On the other hand, in
view
of this situation I have described, the ANC was prepared to depart
from its
fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it would no
longer
disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who
undertook such
activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC.
I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that if I
formed the organization I would at all times subject it to the
political
guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any different form of
activity
from that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And I shall now
tell
the Court how that form of violence came to be determined.
As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961.
When we
took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC
heritage
of non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that
the
country was drifting towards a civil war in which Blacks and Whites
would
fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could
mean
the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial
peace
would be more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples
in
South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than
fifty
years for the scars of the South African War to disappear. How much
longer
would it take to eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which
could
not be fought without a great loss of life on both sides?
The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years,
but
when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realized
that we
might one day have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be
taken
into account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was
flexible
and which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the
times;
above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil war as the
last
resort, and left the decision on this question to the future. We did
not
want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it
became
inevitable.
Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is
guerrilla
warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to
adopt
the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.
In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one.
Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope
for
future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if
the
policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This
is
what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto
(Exhibit
AD):
"We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation
without
bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our
first
actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous
situation to
which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring
the
Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late,
so that
both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters
reach the
desperate state of civil war."
The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and
economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa
depended to
a large extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that
planned
destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone
communications, would tend to scare away capital from the country,
make it
more difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the
seaports on
schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy drain on the economic
life of
the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider
their
position.
Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to be linked
with
sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These
attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In
addition,
they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the
adoption
of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our
followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back
against
Government violence.
In addition, if mass action were successfully organized, and mass
reprisals
taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other
countries, and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the
South
African Government.
This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict
instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on
no
account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out
operations. These instructions have been referred to in the evidence
of 'Mr.
X' and 'Mr. Z'.
The affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and directed by a National
High
Command, which had powers of co-option and which could, and did,
appoint
Regional Commands. The High Command was the body which determined
tactics
and targets and was in charge of training and finance. Under the High
Command there were Regional Commands which were responsible for the
direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the framework of the
policy
laid down by the National High Command, the Regional Commands had
authority
to select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority to go
beyond the
prescribed framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts
which
endangered life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of
sabotage. For
instance, Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into
operation.
Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an
importation from the Jewish national underground organization Irgun
Zvai
Leumi, which operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948.
Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government
buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked.
The
selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred.
Had we
intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people
congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage
which
was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated groups
and
had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a
number of later acts were claimed by other organizations.
The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations
commenced.
The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population
was
characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong
action,
and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands
of
the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they
responded to our call by suggesting the laager.
In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement.
Suddenly
there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships
became
eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by
the
initial successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom
would
be obtained.
But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The
lines
were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate
camps, and
the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white
newspapers
carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was
so,
how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism?
Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial friction. In
1920
when the famous leader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail,
twenty-four of a group of Africans who had gathered to demand his
release
were killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921, more than one
hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over two hundred
Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa led a
force
against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog tax.
On 1
May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings
during the
strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at
Sharpeville.
How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our
country? And
how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence
and
terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our
people
when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must
succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country?
And if
this happened, how could black and white ever live together again in
peace
and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and these were our
decisions.
Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government
limitless
opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it
was
precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with
the
blood of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make
preparations as
a long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves
against
force. If war were inevitable, we wanted the fight to be conducted on
terms
most favourable to our people. The fight which held out prospects best
for
us and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare. We
decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future, to make
provision
for the possibility of guerrilla warfare.
All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training
was
given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus
of
trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be
required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to prepare for such a
situation before it became too late to make proper preparations. It
was also
necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in civil administration
and
other professions, so that Africans would be equipped to participate
in the
government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so.
At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of
the
Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa,
which
was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need
for
preparation, it was also decided that, after the conference, I would
undertake a tour of the African States with a view to obtaining
facilities
for the training of soldiers, and that I would also solicit
scholarships for
the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields
would
be necessary, even if changes came about by peaceful means.
Administrators
would be necessary who would be willing and able to administer a
non-racial
State and so would men be necessary to control the army and police
force of
such a State.
It was on this note that I left South Africa to proceed to Addis Ababa
as a
delegate of the ANC. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met
sympathy
for our cause and promises of help. All Africa was united against the
stand
of White South Africa, and even in London I was received with great
sympathy
by political leaders, such as Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Grimond. In Africa
I was
promised support by such men as Julius Nyerere, now President of
Tanganyika;
Mr. Kawawa, then Prime Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie
of
Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba,
President
of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of Algeria; Modibo Keita,
President of
Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of
Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and Milton Obote, Prime Minister
of
Uganda. It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the
Headquarters of
the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described
in my
diary, one of the Exhibits.
I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst
abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be
guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my
people and
to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of lectures which I
received in
Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries
of
books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also been
produced. I
have already admitted that these documents are in my writing, and I
acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role
which I
might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I
approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was
completely objective. The Court will see that I attempted to examine
all
types of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West,
going
back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as
Mao
Tse Tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the
Anglo-Boer
War on the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the
books I
read and do not contain my personal views.
I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military
training. But
here it was impossible to organize any scheme without the co-operation
of
the ANC offices in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of
the ANC
in South Africa to do this. To this extent then there was a departure
from
the original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Africa
only.
The first batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was
passing through that country on my way back to South Africa.
I returned to South Africa and reported to my colleagues on the
results of
my trip. On my return I found that there had been little alteration in
the
political scene save that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage
had now
become a fact. The attitude of my colleagues in Umkhonto was much the
same
as it had been before I left. They were feeling their way cautiously
and
felt that it would be a long time before the possibilities of sabotage
were
exhausted. In fact, the view was expressed by some that the training
of
recruits was premature. This is recorded by me in the document which
is
Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion, however, it was decided to go
ahead
with the plans for military training because of the fact that it would
take
many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained soldiers to
start a
guerrilla campaign, and whatever happened the training would be of
value.
I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in this case by
the
State. But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences
said by
witnesses to have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am
referring
to the bombing of private houses of pro-Government persons during
September,
October and November 1962. I do not know what justification there was
for
these acts, nor what provocation had been given. But if what I have
said
already is accepted, then it is clear that these acts had nothing to
do with
the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto.
One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the ANC was a
party
to a general conspiracy to commit sabotage. I have already explained
why
this is incorrect but how, externally, there was a departure from the
original principle laid down by the ANC. There has, of course, been
overlapping of functions internally as well, because there is a
difference
between a resolution adopted in the atmosphere of a committee room and
the
concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical activity.
At a
later stage the position was further affected by bannings and house
arrests,
and by persons leaving the country to take up political work abroad.
This
led to individuals having to do work in different capacities. But
though
this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it
by no
means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to keep the
activities of the two organizations in South Africa distinct. The ANC
remained a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type
of
political work they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a
small
organization recruiting its members from different races and
organizations
and trying to achieve its own particular object. The fact that members
of
Umkhonto were recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served
both
organizations, like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the
nature
of the ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of
officers,
however, was more the exception than the rule. This is why persons
such as
'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z', who were on the Regional Command of their
respective
areas, did not participate in any of the ANC committees or activities,
and
why people such as Mr. Bennett Mashiyana and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did
not hear
of sabotage at their ANC meetings.
Another of the allegations in the indictment is that Rivonia was the
headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true of the time when I was
there. I
was told, of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the
Communist Party were carried on there. But this is no reason (as I
shall
presently explain) why I should not use the place.
I came there in the following manner:
1. As already indicated, early in April 1961 I went underground to
organize
the May general strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the
country,
living now in African townships, then in country villages and again in
cities.
During the second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown
home of
Arthur Goldreich, where I used to meet my family privately. Although I
had
no direct political association with him, I had known Arthur Goldreich
socially since 1958. 2. In October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that
he was
moving out of town and offered me a hiding place there. A few days
thereafter, he arranged for Michael Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I
naturally found Rivonia an ideal place for the man who lived the life
of an
outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to live indoors during
the
daytime and could only venture out under cover of darkness. But at
Liliesleaf [farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work far more
efficiently. 3. For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I
assumed
the fictitious name of David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his
family
moved in. I stayed there until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As
already
indicated, I returned in July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5
August. 4.
Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of
neither
the African National Congress nor Umkhonto. With the exception of
myself,
none of the officials or members of these bodies lived there, no
meetings of
the governing bodies were ever held there, and no activities connected
with
them were either organized or directed from there. On numerous
occasions
during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both the Executive Committee
of the
ANC, as well as the NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not
on
the farm. 5. Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited
Arthur
Goldreich in the main house and he also paid me visits in my room. We
had
numerous political discussions covering a variety of subjects. We
discussed
ideological and practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto
and its
activities generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach,
the
military wing of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of
the
Jewish National Movement in Palestine. 6. Because of what I had got to
know
of Goldreich, I recommended on my return to South Africa that he
should be
recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my personal knowledge whether
this
was done.
Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and
objects of
the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this
and
with my own political position, because I must assume that the State
may try
to argue from certain Exhibits that I tried to introduce Marxism into
the
ANC. The allegation as to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation
which
was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again reared its
head. But
since the allegation has been made again, I shall deal with it as well
as
with the relationship between the ANC and the Communist Party and
Umkhonto
and that party.
The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of
African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism
expressed
in the cry, 'Drive the White man into the sea'. The African
Nationalism for
which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the
African people in their own land. The most important political
document ever
adopted by the ANC is the 'Freedom Charter'. It is by no means a
blueprint
for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not
nationalization,
of land; it provides for nationalization of mines, banks, and monopoly
industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and
without
such nationalization racial domination would be perpetuated despite
the
spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the
Gold
Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by
European
companies. In this respect the ANC's policy corresponds with the old
policy
of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of
its
programme the nationalization of the gold mines which, at that time,
were
controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter,
nationalization
would take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The
realization
of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous
African
population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has
never at
any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the
economic
structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection,
ever
condemned capitalist society.
As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its
policy
correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the
principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom
Charter, as a short term solution to the problems created by white
supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not
the end,
of its programme.
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as
members. Its
chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full
political rights. The Communist Party's main aim, on the other hand,
was to
remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class
government.
The Communist Party sought to emphasize class distinctions whilst the
ANC
seeks to harmonize them. This is a vital distinction.
It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the
ANC and
the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal
- in
this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a
complete
community of interests.
The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most
striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great
Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the
fight
against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that
such
co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or
communist
tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a
communist
world.
Another instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in
Umkhonto.
Shortly after Umkhonto was constituted, I was informed by some of its
members that the Communist Party would support Umkhonto, and this then
occurred. At a later stage the support was made openly.
I believe that communists have always played an active role in the
fight by
colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects
of
communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of
freedom
movements. Thus communists have played an important role in the
freedom
struggles fought in countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia,
yet
none of these States today are communist countries. Similarly in the
underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the
last
World War, communists played an important role. Even General Chiang
Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought
together
with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led
to
his assumption of power in China in the 1930s.
This pattern of co-operation between communists and non-communists has
been
repeated in the National Liberation Movement of South Africa. Prior to
the
banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns involving the
Communist
Party and the Congress movements were accepted practice. African
communists
could, and did, become members of the ANC, and some served on the
National,
Provincial, and local committees. Amongst those who served on the
National
Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary of the Communist Party,
Moses
Kotane, another former Secretary, and J. B. Marks, a former member of
the
Central Committee.
I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that
the
policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation
which
existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist
Party,
would lead to a watering down of the concept of African Nationalism.
At that
stage I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League,
and was
one of a group which moved for the expulsion of communists from the
ANC.
This proposal was heavily defeated. Amongst those who voted against
the
proposal were some of the most conservative sections of African
political
opinion. They defended the policy on the ground that from its
inception the
ANC was formed and built up, not as a political party with one school
of
political thought, but as a Parliament of the African people,
accommodating
people of various political convictions, all united by the common goal
of
national liberation. I was eventually won over to this point of view
and I
have upheld it ever since.
It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained
prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African
politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us
the
reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting
against
oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more,
for
many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa
who
were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who
were
prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us.
They
were the only political group which was prepared to work with the
Africans
for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because
of
this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with
communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which
brands
all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as
communists and
bans many of them (who are not communists) under the Suppression of
Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the Communist
Party, I
myself have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I
played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and
imprisoned
under that Act.
It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as
amongst
those who support our cause. In the international field, communist
countries
have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils
of the
world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against
colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than
some
of the Western powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of
apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder
voice than
most of the white world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash
young
politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are
our
enemies.
I turn now to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist,
and I
think that in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my
political beliefs are.
I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African
patriot.
After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six years ago. My guardian was
my
cousin, who was the acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am
related
both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo,
and to
Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei.
Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction
which
springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration
of the
structure and organization of early African societies in this country.
The
land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There
were
no rich or poor and there was no exploitation.
It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by
Marxist
thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new
independent
States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and
Nasser
all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of
socialism
to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this
world
and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not
mean we
are Marxists.
Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether
the
Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage
of
our political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the
removal
of race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the
basis
of the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I
welcome its assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which
people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.
> From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists,
I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary
system
of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I
am an
admirer of such a system.
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are
documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the
world.
I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the
country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the
most
democratic institution in the world, and the independence and
impartiality
of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of
powers, as
well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar
sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this
has
led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be
absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no
particular
system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to
borrow the best from the West and from the East . . .
There are certain Exhibits which suggest that we received financial
support
from abroad, and I wish to deal with this question.
Our political struggle has always been financed from internal sources
- from
funds raised by our own people and by our own supporters. Whenever we
had a
special campaign or an important political case - for example, the
Treason
Trial - we received financial assistance from sympathetic individuals
and
organizations in the Western countries. We had never felt it necessary
to go
beyond these sources.
But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new phase of struggle
introduced, we realized that these events would make a heavy call on
our
slender resources, and that the scale of our activities would be
hampered by
the lack of funds. One of my instructions, as I went abroad in January
1962,
was to raise funds from the African states.
I must add that, whilst abroad, I had discussions with leaders of
political
movements in Africa and discovered that almost every single one of
them, in
areas which had still not attained independence, had received all
forms of
assistance from the socialist countries, as well as from the West,
including
that of financial support. I also discovered that some well-known
African
states, all of them non-communists, and even anti-communists, had
received
similar assistance.
On my return to the Republic, I made a strong recommendation to the
ANC that
we should not confine ourselves to Africa and the Western countries,
but
that we should also send a mission to the socialist countries to raise
the
funds which we so urgently needed.
I have been told that after I was convicted such a mission was sent,
but I
am not prepared to name any countries to which it went, nor am I at
liberty
to disclose the names of the organizations and countries which gave us
support or promised to do so.
As I understand the State case, and in particular the evidence of 'Mr.
X',
the suggestion is that Umkhonto was the inspiration of the Communist
Party
which sought by playing upon imaginary grievances to enrol the African
people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for African freedom,
but
in reality was fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be
further from
the truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed
by
Africans to further their struggle for freedom in their own land.
Communists
and others supported the movement, and we only wish that more sections
of
the community would join us.
Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the
language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships'. Basically, we
fight
against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South
Africa
and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have
repealed.
These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not
need
communists or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things.
South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the
richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and
remarkable
contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of
living
in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per
cent of
the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and, in some cases,
drought-stricken Reserves, where soil erosion and the overworking of
the
soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the land.
Thirty per
cent are labourers, labour tenants, and squatters on white farms and
work
and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle
Ages.
The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed economic
and
social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white
standards.
Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low incomes
and
high cost of living.
The highest-paid and the most prosperous section of urban African life
is in
Johannesburg. Yet their actual position is desperate. The latest
figures
were given on 25 March 1964 by Mr. Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg
Non-European Affairs Department. The poverty datum line for the
average
African family in Johannesburg (according to Mr. Carr's department) is
R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly wage is R32.24
and that
46 per cent of all African families in Johannesburg do not earn enough
to
keep them going.
Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease. The incidence
of
malnutrition and deficiency diseases is very high amongst Africans.
Tuberculosis, pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, and scurvy
bring
death and destruction of health. The incidence of infant mortality is
one of
the highest in the world. According to the Medical Officer of Health
for
Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty people a day (almost all Africans),
and
in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases reported. These diseases not only
destroy the vital organs of the body, but they result in retarded
mental
conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of concentration.
The
secondary results of such conditions affect the whole community and
the
standard of work performed by African labourers.
The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and
the
whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are
designed
to preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of
poverty. The
first is by formal education, and the second is by
|
|
|
|
| Re: Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis [boodskap #105478 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #105451] |
Vr, 02 September 2005 05:52 |
WalkTall
Boodskappe: 7
Geregistreer: Augustus 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Lid |
|
|
a.deemter wrote:
> APPLAUS!!!
>
> I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch
> descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years.
> I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!!
>
> But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort
> of god?? They only believe what the TV says...
>
> Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people
> here didn't believe me....
> Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to
> Africa, so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something.
> They expect us to help them all the time."
> I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!"
> they said.
>
> I wish you all the luck!!
>
> Cor
Hi Cor,
Where can I read this article you wrote? Should be interesting to compare it
with the situation at present. Can you perhaps post it here if you still
have it? TIA
--
_______
WalkTall
What a tragedy!!
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Ma Mei 20 04:42:28 MGT 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
